Sources at CERN have told ScienceInsider that a hardware problem with an …

Since September, scientists have been scratching their head over results that appear to show neutrinos traveling between Switzerland and Italy faster than light would. As far as anyone could tell, the team behind the results had done everything they could to eliminate errors, and had even released some preliminary data that had strengthened their results. But the results remained difficult to square with everything else we know about how the Universe operates.

But now, ScienceInsider is reporting that there was a good reason the measurements and reality weren't lining up: a loose fiber optic cable was causing one of the atomic clocks used to time the neutrinos' flight to produce spurious results. If the report is confirmed (right now, there's only one source), then it provides a simple explanation for the fascinating-yet-difficult-to-accept results. According to the new report, researchers are preparing to gather new data with the clocks properly hooked into computers, which should definitively indicate whether the loose connection was at fault.

It's somewhat ironic that ScienceInsider, which is part of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, broke the news now. Over the weekend, the AAAS held its annual meeting, which included a discussion of the biggest news in physics, where the neutrino results were highlighted. The session indicated that five different neutrino experiments were upgrading their hardware in order to check timing, and some would have data before the year is out. So even if this report doesn't pan out, we should know more soon.

At the AAAS meeting's discussion, CERN's director of research, Sergio Bertolucci, placed his bet on what the results would be: "I have difficulty to believe it, because nothing in Italy arrives ahead of time."

UPDATE: Nature News has apparently received a statement from the Opera researchers. It indicates they have found two potential issues (one of them the optical cabling). The two issues would skew the results in opposite directions, which is why they will need new measurements to better understand whether both influence the results and, if so, what the net impact is.

I'm kind of amazed that a loose cable would throw out the results enough to cause this kind of thing. Is it actually because of the longer travel time of electricity across the cable? That's kind of crazy that they'd have to calibrate everything to such an extent.

In a relativistic universe (like this one), travelling at constant +1g half-way, then at -1g the other half, you'd need 30 years (rocket time) to reach the Andromeda Galaxy, which is situated at a distance of 2.5 million light years. In Earth time, it would take 2.5 million years.

In a newtonian universe (without the "speed of light limit"), the exact same journey at the same acceleration would take thousands of years in both rocket and Earth time.

So, the relativistic speed of light "limit" is not really a limit. It actually makes the journey a heck of a lot shorter - in rocket time. As long as you ignore the Earth, and you only care about the rocket, a relativistic universe is actually better for space travel. It's only worse from Earth's perspective - but who cares about those suckers, right?

Well... I'm guessing now that every time something else big is announced, naysayers will start by saying "did you check for loose cables?"

I hope so, it's how programmers got the term 'bug'. Back in the vacuum tube days they had a problem with a program due to a moth in a tube!!!

Use of the term "bug" for "unexplained fault" significantly predates that; the note that was taken at the time even says "first actual case of bug being found". Incidentally the computer in question did not use vacuum tubes but electromagnetic relays instead; how would a moth get inside a vacuum tube?

Our computer tech support guys always first do is a quick scan of the cables to make sure they are all seated well as part of their standard problem diagnosis procedure. I don't know if this is a feasible first step when scaled up to diagnosing machines of this complexity.

Well... I'm guessing now that every time something else big is announced, naysayers will start by saying "did you check for loose cables?"

You're supposed to do that anyway. When I was in college, it appeared I broke the law of conservation of mass during a metallurgy experiment (metallurgy basically being the theory that any amount of metal you put into a compound, you can get back out) and ended up with more copper in the end than I had in the beginning. Now, it was fun for my partner and I to suggest that we broke the laws of nature but, in reality, it was clear we did something wrong and our copper couldn't have been as pure as it should have been. Even better, there's the default questions all tech support staff need to ask. "Did you try restarting?" "Are you sure all of your cables are properly connected?"

If it sounds too good to be true and it's science, something probably malfunctioned.

Well... I'm guessing now that every time something else big is announced, naysayers will start by saying "did you check for loose cables?"

I hope so, it's how programmers got the term 'bug'. Back in the vacuum tube days they had a problem with a program due to a moth in a tube!!!

Use of the term "bug" for "unexplained fault" significantly predates that; the note that was taken at the time even says "first actual case of bug being found". Incidentally the computer in question did not use vacuum tubes but electromagnetic relays instead; how would a moth get inside a vacuum tube?

I agree with this. however, I posit that it is not ours to conceive the ways moths get into anything. I have seen bugs in places that make very little sense. If i went to a tube reseller and got a brand new one, say for my guitar amp or an old CRAY, opened up the box and found a giant moth fluttering about in it, I would not be surprised. Mostly because moths have timelord calibur powers and vac tubes loosely resemble light bulbs, a combination detrimental to older computer architecture.